Attorney General Threatens To Prosecute Reporters For Doing Their Job

from the with-great-power-comes-great-ridiculousness dept

Following a trail blazed by Maryland councilman Kirby Delauter, a Virgin Islands Attorney General is making an ass of herself by threatening journalists for having the audacity to do their job. Delauter infamously publicly attacked a reporter for daring to publish his name in her paper, apparently unaware that this sort of thing happens to public officials roughly all the damn time. The ensuing internet maelstrom forced a retraction and apology from Delauter.

The Virgin Islands Daily News is still waiting for an apology from acting Attorney General Terri Griffiths for this wholly inappropriate response to acts of journalism. [via Jim Romenesko]

Acting Attorney General Terri Griffiths told executives of The Virgin Islands Daily News on Thursday morning that she will prosecute the newspaper on criminal charges because of its telephone calls to obtain comment and information from her.

"I'll be filing criminal charges against you," Griffiths said as she abruptly left a meeting at The Daily News' offices on St. Thomas.

She also claimed a quote appearing in one of the paper's stories was "fabricated." This is the quote:

"I will not comment on the Parole Board hearings."

This quote seems like something an attorney general would be very likely to say. In fact, the refusal to comment has long been a hallmark of law enforcement-press relations. Not commenting is the national pastime of law enforcers, who are often the first party to issue a solid "no comment" after controversial incidents. But Griffith claims this completely innocuous and completely boring quote was fabricated. The Daily News found otherwise.

The Daily News has reviewed Griffiths' allegations that a quote attributed to her had been fabricated and stands by its published report, Robbins said.

"We take any report of inaccuracy very seriously, and we publish a clarification or correction if an error appears in print," Robbins said. "In this case, we found that the reporter was accurate."

But Griffiths is more upset that Daily News reporters are calling her on her cell phone to obtain additional "no comments" on various stories involving her office. This would almost be a legitimate complaint (provided you ignore the ensuing "I'll put you in jail" threat that accompanied it), if it weren't for the fact that Griffiths herself provided the cell phone number to the paper.

Griffiths spoke at length about her desire not to be called on the cell phone or after hours, and she termed the calls "telephone harassment."

Daily News reporters have called Griffiths on her cell when unable to reach her on her office phone. The cell number they used is the one she provided to the newspaper.

The meeting broke down when Robbins asked Griffiths to answer specific questions about her grievances.

Griffiths objected to that and said she did not want to be "blindsided."

"I don't want to talk to your reporters ever. There will be no communication between me and The Daily News ever again," she said.

She asked Robbins whether he would instruct reporters not to call her on the cell phone.

Robbins said, "No."

Griffiths then left the meeting, announcing, "Then I am going to file criminal charges against you."

Welcome to the life of a public figure, Ms. Griffiths. Reporters are going to call you when your input is needed or desired. It won't always be during business hours, especially if your office can't provide "I will not comment" (non)comments in your absence. Certainly, an excessive amount of calls after "business hours" (whatever that means to powerful law enforcement figures/journalists -- I would imagine those timetables have significant differences) would be irritating, but it doesn't rise to the level of harassment.

And Griffiths' comment about resenting being "blindsided" strongly suggests she'd rather not deal with this part of the job at all. Any question can be deferred to a later time if the answer isn't immediately apparent, but the pattern of calls Griffiths calls "harassment" suggests she's not exactly forthcoming or timely in her responses.

Harassment may be a crime, but journalism isn't. If Griffiths would rather not answer questions, she can place that burden on her staff. Or she can communicate only through official statements and press releases. Or she can give the newspaper guidance on what times are acceptable to call. But what she definitely can't do -- or at least shouldn't -- is abuse the power of her position to mute pesky guardians of public accountability.

Filed Under: criminal charges, free speech, freedom of the press, intimidation, journalism, terri griffiths, virgin island

Alabama Legislators Say You Must Be A Salaried Employee Of Old School Media To Get Approved For Press Credentials

from the enjoy-Alabama's-refreshingly-shallow-press-pool! dept

The only people who still feel they can clearly define who is and isn't a journalist are legislators. They're almost always wrong. Journalism isn't a career. It's an activity. Anyone can do it and, thanks to the internet, anyone can find a publishing platform and readers. But, according to many politicians, it ain't the press unless it involves one.

If you want press credentials to cover Alabama's legislative sessions, prepare to be disappointed. (via Jim Romenesko)

Raise your hand if you trust Alabama Republican legislative leaders to define "legitimate journalism" in Alabama. Well, they're doing it anyway. Tuscaloosa Rep. Chris England took to Facebook to post a list of criteria that reporters will have to meet if they're to receive press credentials & be allowed inside the press rooms at the State House.

No one's raising their hands (except maybe the legislators) but that's not going to stop the legislature from defining "journalist" to fit its narrow standards. Here's Alabama's proposed official press credential policy.

1. A media representative shall be admitted to the floors of the House or Senate or allowed press privileges if the person is a salaried staff correspondent, reporter, or photographer employed by any of the following:

a. The news department of a federally licensed television or radio station, or the news department of a network providing coverage to television and radio stations.
b. A newspaper of general circulation providing print or online editions for the dissemination of news of a general character, which has a bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers, and has been established, printed, and published at regular intervals.
c. A wire service providing news service to newspapers, television, or radio stations as referred to above.
d. Internet news services and bloggers associated with any of the previously listed categories.

2. Applicants seeking press credentials are required to submit documentation from their employer certifying that they are engaged primarily in reporting the sessions of the legislature.

The applicant must also certify that, with the exception of the Alabama Press Association and the Alabama Broadcasters Association, and the exception of receiving advertising revenue, they have no affiliation with any person, firm, corporation, association, or political party that attempts to influence legislative issues or lobby members of the Alabama Legislature.

3. Applicants unable to comply with the aforementioned certification requirement will not be issued legislative press credentials, but will still be free to cover sessions of the Alabama Legislature from the public galleries located on the sixth and eighth floors.

Any person who is discovered to have misrepresented themselves to obtain legislative press credentials will have their credentials denied or revoked.

Notice how much emphasis is placed on being paid and working for incumbent media outlets. This wording gives incumbent media preference over upstarts and quite possibly means those whose platforms aren't instantly recognizable by legislators will be deemed "non-press" and denied access.

Also notice how much information journalists will need to provide in exchange for a press pass. If you want to cover the Alabama legislature, you'll need to prove that you're a salaried employee of one of the entities on the "approved" list. Maybe something on official letterhead will be good enough for the legislature. Or maybe it's suggesting you bring a pay stub or two with you and a portfolio of your work (... and financial statements verifying your employer has subscribers, still in business, etc...). And God forbid you hold a part-time job with any "person, firm, corporation or association" that "attempts to influence legislative issues," but still attempt to "certify" that you have no connection to myriad entities listed in the "forbidden connections" section. You can kiss your credentials goodbye. And this part of the list about forbidden connections -- "or political party" -- suggests journalists are better off not registering to vote.

Beyond that, there's the weird stipulation that those receiving press credentials will need to be "engaged primarily in reporting the sessions of the legislature. (And be able to prove it.) Here's Left in Alabama's take on that:

Other than the Montgomery Advertiser, what news outlets have reporters who "primarily" report on the legislature? Staff is stretched so thin that a reporter might cover a legislative story in the morning, a car wreck over lunch, a heartwarming pet story in the afternoon, and then do a stand up about Mike Hubbard's arrest on corruption charges for the evening news broadcast. Does that count?

Now, Alabama legislators can pretend that these restrictions are in place to prevent the press gallery from becoming bathrobe blogger central, but all it's really there for is to ensure as many potential journalists as possible are locked out. It also locks out nonprofit organizations that perform journalism, as one commenter on England's Facebook page points out.

While I seriously couldn't care less about being in the press room or having "credentials", it would certainly leave the Alabama School Connection out, as I am a nonprofit news organization, online only. I will not ever have "paying subscribers". There is a huge world of nonprofit news organizations that wouldn't meet any of those criteria…

England states on his page that he's against these proposed rules. Good for him. Now, that all may change, thanks to certain members of the Alabama legislature. If it does, many journalists will be locked out, and the First Amendment will be worse off for it.

Filed Under: alabama, free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, journalists, media, press credentials

Police Militarization, Citizen Journalism And The Suppression Of Free Speech: The Ferguson Fiasco Highlights Systemic Problem

from the time-to-change-things dept

Last night we wrote briefly about the police in Ferguson, Missouri, detaining two journalists -- Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post. The situation in Ferguson was already a mess in terms of the police killing an unarmed teenager, responding poorly to that situation, and then making things worse by challenging citizens' rights to free speech and to assemble. Taking it a step further and targeting journalists further shows that the police in Ferguson, beyond having little plan on what to do, were looking to suppress the flow of information about what was happening. Soon after that post went up, the police went even further in teargassing a reporting team from Al Jazeera America. Living in the US, the idea that reporters from Al Jazeera might face teargassing from "security forces" may not seem that strange... if it were in the Middle East. But this is in Missouri, which should say something about how much we've lost the plot here in America. It's pretty clear from the video that the teargas was shot directly at the press -- who were obviously members of the press getting their lights ready for a live shot. There were further reports that the police also fired rubber bullets at those same reporters.

But of course, in this day and age, focusing just on the "professional" press is kind of meaningless. Anyone can be a part of the press, and that's happening quite frequently. Local Alderman Antonio French went out into Ferguson and was doing plenty of reporting, even if he wasn't professional media. Here were some of his tweets from last night:

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/64RGlmDXBc

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/qg6vDs916H

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Happening now in #Ferguson https://t.co/SrpzSfMBkq

— Antonio French (@AntonioFrench) August 14, 2014

Wesley Lowery, the Washington Post reporter who was detained, noted that French provided the "biggest public service" he'd seen so far in covering what was happening... and that he was "appalled" to find out that, of course, French was arrested. Unlike with Lowery and Reilly, who were detained and not charged, French was charged with "unlawful assembly" and was thrown in jail. While police said he would be in jail for 24 hours, after protests emerged around the arrest, French was released this morning.

The whole thing highlights just how dangerous this situation has become and how police in Ferguson appear to be trampling over basically every constitutional right they can come up with (there was a joke on Twitter last night -- and forgive me for not being able to track down where it originated -- that before too long, police in Ferguson will be demanding to be quartered in residents' houses...).

We've been covering the ridiculous trend of militarizing the police for quite some time (though nowhere near as long as Radley Balco, who has been warning about this for ages, with very few people paying attention...), and just last month highlighted just how ridiculous it has become. In many, many cases, the militarization is actually driven by the Department of Homeland Security giving local police forces cast off military equipment for free. In the past 12 years, DHS has given $35 billion (with a b) in grants and equipment to local police forces. I recently found out that the local police in the small sleepy suburb where Techdirt's offices are located got themselves an MRAP, and it scares me silly.

Glenn Greenwald is noting that the events in Ferguson are finally dragging the horrors of a militarized police force into the limelight, and I hope it leads to a severe about-face. Ryan Cooper, at The Week, has a similar piece, saying that what's happening in Ferguson shows why you don't militarize police. Another comment (again, sorry for the lack of attribution as I can't find it now) that flew by on Twitter was something to the effect of that the military is trained to take out an enemy, while the police are supposed to be the public's servants. But when you militarize the police, the public becomes the enemy.

Given all this, Trevor Timm, of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, rightly notes that the militarization of the police is now a press freedom issue as well:

But until now, this issue has not really reached the mainstream, or if it has, it's been thought of as something that happens in a foreign authoritarian country and not the United States. Besides the arrests yesterday, you can watch video of Al Jazeera journalists being tear-gassed by these police forces (and perhaps mistake it for footage from Tahrir Square in Egypt). Or you listen to a brave citizen journalist operating a livestream describe events as police demand people to turn off their cameras, just as the tear gas and rubber bullets start to fly. Or you can think about citizen journalist Antonio French who was not as lucky as the other two reporters and is still sitting in jail.

In response to the travesty in Ferguson, the Justice Department indicated it may re-open a broad review of local police tactics around the country to investigate some of these issues. That is the least they should do. The rights of countless lawful citizens have been trampled on in Ferguson and around the country thanks to these police tactics, and something needs to be done soon.

But reporters should take note: these issues don't just affect protesters, but also affect those who cover the protest. It creates an environment where police think they can disregard the law and tell reporters to stop filming, despite their legal right to do so, or fire tear gas directly at them to prevent them from doing their job. And if the rights of journalists are being trampled on, you can almost guarantee it's even worse for those who don't have such a platform to protect themselves. Mr. Lowery said it best after he was released from jail yesterday:

“I knew I was going to be fine,” he said. “But the thing is, so many people here in Ferguson don’t have as many Twitter followers as I have and don’t have [Washington Post owner] Jeff Bezos or whoever to call and bail them out of jail.”

And, of course, what that really shows is that this is not just a freedom of the press issue, but a freedom of speech issue -- and, more broadly, a freedom issue, period. By militarizing the police, DHS and the federal government have set up a situation that is designed to snuff out free speech, freedom of assembly and the rights of everyone. It is trampling the very constitution it is supposedly defending. It's a complete travesty. It's been going on for a while, but the events in Ferguson only serve to highlight just how ridiculous and dangerous the situation has become.

Filed Under: antonio french, dhs, ferguson, first amendment, free speech, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, missouri, police, police militarization, ryan reilly, wesley lowery

SWAT Team Shows Up In Ferguson, Detains Reporters Live Tweeting Their Actions

from the incredible dept

We've been debating internally whether or not to cover the mess that is currently going on in Ferguson, Missouri. There has been plenty of attention paid to the protests and the failures by police there -- and we frequently cover problems with police, as well as the militarization of police, which was absolutely on display in Ferguson (if you've been under a rock, police killed an unarmed teenager there last week, leading to protests over the past few days -- and the police have been handling the situation... poorly, to say the least). However, the situation was changing so rapidly, it wasn't entirely clear what to cover. The pictures from Ferguson of a very militarized police force were disturbing, and we've been thinking about writing something on that (and we may still). However, this evening, things got even more ridiculous, as not only did the SWAT team show up, but it then arrested two of the reporters who had been covering the events: Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of the Huffington Post. Both had been vital in getting out the story of what was happening on the street.

Here are a few of their tweets (prior to being arrested):

I counted 70+ SWAT officers. Guns trained on crowds. Insanity. pic.twitter.com/stev2G6v4b

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

Overkill in #Ferguson. Officer won't answer my question about why this is needed. pic.twitter.com/iSPsP1Rxa1

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

This exchange-> RT @AntonioFrench: State Senator asks the #Ferguson police chief if she's going to be gassed again. https://t.co/bXTjTbc7kM

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

And then, soon after those and other tweets, another reporter, Jon Swaine from the Guardian, reported that he saw two reporters detained by police in a McDonalds:

Two reporters just cuffed and put in cop can outside Ferguson McDonald's where @WesleyLowery said he and @ryanjreilly were working

— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 13, 2014

Lowery and Reilly each had live tweeted the police entering the McDonald's, followed by a long silence from their accounts:

Police come into McD where me and @ryanjreilly working. Try to kick everyone out.

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 13, 2014

SWAT just invade McDonald's where I'm working/recharging. Asked for ID when I took photo. pic.twitter.com/FOIsMnBwHy

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 13, 2014

A fourth reporter on the scene, Matt Pearce of the LA Times, contacted the police chief about the situation, who was apparently surprised at the turn of events and said he'd order them released:

I just called Ferguson police chief to ask about @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly, told him what I knew. His response: "Oh, God."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

I just talked to the Ferguson chief again about Wes and Ryan. "I told them to release them," he said of the riot command.

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

Ferguson chief tells me @WesleyLowery and @ryanjreilly's arresters were "probably somebody who didn't know better."

— Matt Pearce (@mattdpearce) August 14, 2014

Soon after, both Lowery and Reilly tweeted about their experiences, which were not exactly pleasant.

Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out of

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Detained, booked, given answers to no questions. Then just let out

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

Also Ryan Reilly of Huff Po. Assaulted and arrested

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) August 14, 2014

@ryanjreilly and @wesleyLowery have been arrested for "not packing their bags quick enough" at McD's #Ferguson

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

Unfortunately my last Vine featuring the officer who assaulted me was deleted when other my phone died.

— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) August 14, 2014

I'm sure that we'll have more on this whole thing, but as GideonsTrumpet notes, Lowery and Reilly were technically detained, not arrested, "which is far more insidious" because there's no accountability. No charges to challenge. Nothing. It's just a way to silence the press who were diligently getting the word out there on what they were doing.

There are all sorts of very questionable activities going on in Ferguson, including intimidation and threats against the protestors exercising their right to assembly and free speech. Detaining reporters in the middle of that is just the latest in a long string of "fuck your constitutional rights" by the (very heavily militarized) police down there.

Filed Under: arrests, assembly, detention, ferguson, free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, michael brown, police, protests, ryan reilly, swat teams, wesley lowery
Companies: huffington post, washington post

Guardian Installed SecureDrop Outside The UK, Due To Legal Threats

from the incredible dept

As part of the whole Reset the Net effort yesterday, the Guardian announced that it is now using SecureDrop to allow whistleblowers and sources to send them information in a protected manner. As you may recall, SecureDrop (nee DeadDrop) was Aaron Swartz's last project (built with Kevin Poulsen), which the good folks at the Freedom of the Press Foundation took over last fall. It's great to see The Guardian adopt SecureDrop, but what caught my eye was this tidbit:

The Guardian’s SecureDrop system is installed outside of the UK. Last year, the UK government was criticized by international press freedom organisations for applying pressure to the Guardian over its publication of the NSA documents leaked by Snowden, leading to the news organization relocating its reporting on the files to the USA, and destroying all copies of the documents stored in its UK headquarters.

In other words, the Guardian, a UK newspaper, is admitting that it simply doesn't feel safe locating its SecureDrop implementation inside the UK. For people who believe in press freedom in the UK, this is a pretty scary statement -- just the latest in the past few years that have really called into question the UK's support for a free and open press.

Filed Under: freedom of the press, securedrop, uk, whistleblowers
Companies: the guardian

Journalists Sue Government After Military Security Seizes Cameras And Deletes Photos Of Publicly-Visible Structures

from the abusive-powers-gorging-on-self-induced-paranoia dept

Photography is the new "driving while black." Not that the original "driving while black" has actually vanished, what with New York City making "walking while black" the equivalent of reasonable suspicion, but now people of all races, even those normally somewhat immune to harassment, can join in on the "fun" of low-level oppression.

Two members of the Toledo (OH) Blade found themselves being screwed with by military security while taking photographs of stuff in plain sight. (via Poynter)

Mr. Linkhorn and Ms. Fraser were in Lima covering a Ford Motor Co. news conference at the automaker’s plant there. Afterward, they went to shoot photos of businesses in the area for future use, including the tank plant, which is also known as the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center.

The reporters were at the entry portions of the plant, in an area where no fence or gate restricted access, according to the complaint. They did not pass a guard hut, which is about 30 feet from Buckeye Road.

The Lima, OH tank plant is well known and has been photographed before. The company makes no secret about what it manufactures, having placed this right in front of its plant.


But because all things, even photography of visible structures, inevitably lead to terrorism, security at the Lima plant decided to step in and stop the two Blade employees from gathering any more "intel."

Blade reporter Tyrel Linkhorn and photographer Jetta Fraser were detained March 28 by military security outside the plant and had cameras confiscated and pictures deleted.

This alone would step outside the boundaries set by the Constitution, but the security officers went even further, harassing the photographer by making various comments about her (perceived) lack of femininity, including referring to her using masculine pronouns and offering to "go under her bra."

Now, because those in charge of "protecting" the plant from photography of visible "assets" were unable to restrain themselves, a long list of names linked to the military contractor have been named in a civil rights lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims Ms. Fraser and Mr. Linkhorn's First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights were deprived, as were their rights under the First Amendment Privacy Protection Act.

"At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were present in places that were open to the public and in which Plaintiffs had a lawful right to be," the lawsuit states. "At all material times, Plaintiffs Fraser and Linkhorn were engaged in fully lawful and constitutionally protected conduct, observing and photographing subjects that were and are open to public view and that Plaintiffs had full legal and constitutional rights to observe and photograph."

As is noted in the lawsuit, everything photographed could be seen from a public road. You can see satellite photography of the plant via Google Maps, not to mention closer looks via Street View. None of this has been redacted by government request. Details on buildings, including interior structures, are listed in a 1984 "Historic American Engineering Record" produced and made public by the contractor itself. Much of what's contained is now outdated, but what's included in this public report was current as of 1980, four years prior to its release.

An image search for "Lima Army Tank Plant" brings up a host of current photos, many of which show the inside of the building, something that would be vastly more sensitive than anything obtained by a photographer located outside the boundaries of the plant itself.

Despite all of this info being readily available, plant security allegedly named the following as the impetus for its seizure of the camera and deletion of photos.

Ms. Fraser said that an officer told her that taking pictures of the plant’s power supply that is visible from the street raised the “suspicion of terrorism.”

Much like the DHS and its useless Fusion Centers, everyone in the military-industrial complex (along with the intelligence community in general) is buying into the lie that photographing visible structures is "terrorism." If these publicly-viewable buildings pose so much of a threat simply by being observed, maybe security officers should stop harassing photographers and throw a few tarps over the sensitive structures or something.

Filed Under: free speech, freedom of the press, journalism, photos, tanks
Companies: ford

Guardian Releases Video From That Time Its Editors Were Forced To Destroy A Laptop That Had Snowden Documents

from the remember-that-one-time,-at-idiot-camp? dept

You may recall how, last summer, there was a ridiculous situation in which David Cameron ordered a government official to go down to the Guardian's offices in London and force them to physically destroy a computer that had stored some encrypted documents from the batch of documents that Ed Snowden had given to reporters. The whole thing was ridiculous on multiple levels, as the Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger clearly told the government officials that there were other copies outside of the UK, and that the Guardian would continue reporting on those documents from its offices in NY. Apparently unaware of how stupid they looked, the government officials continued the charade, and the Guardian physically destroyed the drives and memory cards.

The Guardian has now released a short video that intersperses some commentary and news clips about the event with some actual footage of Guardian employees taking power tools to the components in question. As Rusbridger noted at the time, this was a particularly "pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age." And, really, that line could apply to an awful lot about the NSA/GCHQ affair lately. Yes, they understand a lot about how to spy on everyone via digital tools, but they've shown little to no recognition of the problems this creates for the economy, for technology, for innovation, for privacy, for security and for public sentiment.

Filed Under: alan rusbridger, david cameron, ed snowden, free speech, freedom of the press, hard drives, uk
Companies: the guardian

Tone Deaf NSA Officials Tell Reporter It's Time To Reform The First Amendment

from the how-about-reforming-the-nsa-out-of-existence dept

Daniel Drezner has a fairly incredible short blog post over at Foreign Policy magazine about his experience visiting the NSA as the organization is seeking to ramp up its PR campaign about how it's not actually evil. We've already covered the 60 Minutes debacle, but in many ways this piece is just as enlightening, as he notes just how incredibly tone deaf NSA officials appear to be -- unable to understand why people are upset about what they're doing.

The NSA's biggest strategic communications problem, however, is that they've been so walled off from the American body politic that they have no idea when they're saying things that sound tone-deaf. Like expats returning from a long overseas tour, NSA staffers don't quite comprehend how much perceptions of the agency have changed. The NSA stresses in its mission statement and corporate culture that it "protects privacy rights." Indeed, there were faded banners proclaiming that goal in our briefing room. Of course, NSAers see this as protecting Americans from foreign cyber-intrusions. In a post-Snowden era, however, it's impossible to read that statement without suppressing a laugh.

It might be an occupational hazard, but NSA officials continue to talk about the threat environment as if they've been frozen in amber since 2002. To them, the world looks increasingly unsafe. Syria is the next Pakistan, China is augmenting its capabilities to launch a financial war on the United States, and the next terrorist attack on American soil is right around the corner. They could very well be correct -- except that the American public has become inured to such warnings over the past decade, and their response has been to tell politicians to focus on things at home and leave the rest of the world alone. A strategy of "trust us, the world is an unsafe place" won't resonate now the way it did in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

But, perhaps the most tone deaf of all, was the statement from one NSA official suggesting that it's time to reform the First Amendment, because he's not at all happy about how reporters have covered the NSA recently. As Drezner notes, he's not sure if it's a joke or not, but it really doesn't matter. That seems like something you should not joke about if you're an NSA person, given everything that's going on.

The NSA's attitude toward the press is, well, disturbing. There were repeated complaints about the ways in which recent reportage of the NSA was warped or lacking context. To be fair, this kind of griping is a staple of officials across the entire federal government. Some of the NSA folks went further, however. One official accused some media outlets of "intentionally misleading the American people," which is a pretty serious accusation. This official also hoped that the Obama administration would crack down on these reporters, saying, "I have some reforms for the First Amendment."

It seems that the public might have some reforms for the intelligence community as well. And those would actually be constitutional, unlike what that particular NSA officials had in mind for free speech and the press. There's even more in the Drezner piece that is well worth reading, including the how the NSA was unable to properly manage his own personal information which he had to send them in order to get his pass to come for a visit...

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, freedom of the press, nsa, nsa surveillance, press freedom, public relations

UK Foreign Secretary Says Merely 'Speculating' About Intelligence Capabilities Is Damaging To The Country

from the silence-peons! dept

As much as we bemoan the attacks on freedom of the press in the US, I'm increasingly astounded at the disdain the British government appears to have for any sort of press that might hold them accountable. We've already talked about David Cameron trying to stop the Guardian from publishing any more Snowden leaks, and even suggesting that there should be criminal penalties. Last week, we noted that MI6 boss John Sawers appeared to be massively overstating the "harm" caused by the reporting.

And, now, it appears that the UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has taken it up a notch, arguing that merely speculating about the kinds of capabilities the intelligence community has puts everyone at risk:

"By speculating about our capabilities, it makes it easier for people who want to evade interception but are seeking to damage our country, or kill people, it makes it easier for them to evade interception. That is something that is very, very serious, and very damaging."

What a load of complete hogwash. First of all, merely speculating doesn't reveal what's actually going on. Second, terrorists already know pretty damn well about the ability of governments to spy, and as we saw with Osama bin Laden, they take extra precautions to avoid using tools that can be tracked. Third, and perhaps more importantly, the very fact that bin Laden was forced to avoid easily tracked communications actually made his activities that much more difficult to proceed, since he was unable to coordinate as effectively. You'd think that this sort of thing would be a good thing for governments in stopping terrorism.

I recognize that the right to a free press has never been as strongly put forth in the UK as it is in the US (even though it may be under attack here), but these blatant attacks on the freedom of the press to report on things very much in the public interest are quite disturbing.

Filed Under: ed snowden, free speech, freedom of the press, gchq, john sawers, nsa, surveillance, uk, william hague
Companies: the guardian

UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story

from the no-freedom-of-the-press dept

The UK's issue broad injunctions that try to silence the press from naming names of people accused of crimes. Given that, a court apparently ordered the Wall Street Journal to remove the names of bankers the WSJ had noted were expected to be named as being involved in the criminal manipulation of the LIBOR rate:

A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

The order, which applies to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.

Except, as the Journal notes, it had already published the story out on the wire, and while it took down its own web story, and is protesting the injunction, it's not at all difficult to find other stories that published the names:

In Friday’s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.

And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well: And, in the end, all this has really done is draw that much more attention to the names.

Filed Under: censorship, freedom of the press, injunctions, libor, press, super injunctions, uk, wall street journal
Companies: dow jones